G.R.Bhattacharjee. J. - (1.)By my order dated 19.4.94 I directed the R. T. A. Midnapore to issue permanent permit to the petitioner on the concerned route within six weeks from the date of communication of the said order. No such permanent permit was, however, issued within the stipulated time in spite of my order. The petitioner then filed the present contempt application dated 19.8.94.
(2.)It is, inter alia, submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that after service of the contempt application pursuant to the order of this court dated 21.9.94, the contemnor issued permanent permit on 26.9.94 but with an endorsement on the permit that the petitioner is allowed to ply the concerned hired vehicle for three months with effect from 27.9.94. This fact has been brought to the notice of the court by the petitioner by affirming a supplementary affidavit on 12th January, 1995.
(3.)When the court directed for issuing a permanent permit, it was incumbent upon the R.T.A. to issue usual permit as granted in case of permanent permits for a period of five years, but by imposing a condition that the hired vehicle was allowed to ply only for three months, the effect of the purported permanent permit has been drastically curtailed and the court's direction for issuing permanent permit in favour of the petitioner virtually stands frustrated. Apart from the question why the permanent permit was not issued within the stipulated period, the very fact that the permanent permit was coupled with a condition that the hired vehicle was allowed to ply for a limited period of three months only instead of the usual period of five years prima facie constitutes deliberate violation of the court's order.
;